The US Military is sitting on a potential 7GW of untapped solar power capacity …

The US Military is sitting on a potential 7GW of untapped solar power capacity in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts, according to a recent Department of Defense report that analyzed the applicability of a variety of solar technologies across seven military installations.

Initially nine military installations were analyzed, seven in California and two in Nevada, taking in sites used by the Army, Navy, and Air Force as well as the Marine Corps. By comparing competing solar energy technologies on such a large scale, the report (titled Solar Energy Development on Department of Defense Installations in the Mojave and Colorado Deserts, available in PDF on the ESTCP website) gives insight as to the commercial viability of solar power in the US today.

Though building roofs and car park shades were identified as potential homes for solar collectors, ground sites make up the vast majority of the potential solar sites analyzed in the study. These areas were subject to GIS analysis, overlaying up to 40 variables per location. Suitable sites were assessed for their technical and economic feasibility; six solar electricity-generating technologies were examined, including crystalline photovoltaics, thin-film photovoltaics, and concentrating solar thermal systems.

Due to the lack of "significant solar development potential" in the Nevada bases, they do not contribute to the 7GW of potential solar capacity identified by the study. Additionally, the report found that, for the seven bases in California, 96 percent of the land was also unsuitable—excessive slopes, environmental conflicts and the presence of exploding things being among the reasons for exclusion. That left 125,000 acres of land, of which 100,000 were deemed either "likely" or "questionably" suitable for solar, and 25,000 "suitable."

The 7GW of potential solar capacity relies upon two assumptions. The first is that all of the suitable land would be put to use for solar generation; the second is that 25 percent of the likely and questionable land would also be utilized. The report characterizes 7GW of capacity as the "maximum" potential for solar development across the sites. Note that the capacity of a solar power plant is, as for any power plant, the theoretical maximum output under ideal conditions. A capacity factor is used to describe the actual output of a facility over time, as a proportion of the capacity. Capacity factors for solar technologies are typically cited at around 20 percent for areas with high levels of solar radiation, such as California.

To contextualize 7GW of potential solar power, the largest solar facility of any kind is currently the 354MW-capacity Solar Energy Generating System, also in California's Mojave Desert. To tap the solar potential identified in this report would require infrastructure equivalent to roughly 20 times this facility, albeit distributed across several sites.

The report finds that development of the 125,000 acres is economically feasible, though only to private investors able to benefit from current tax incentives at both the Federal and State level. Direct DoD funding of solar projects "would be financially unattractive in all cases," the report suggests. More positive was the finding that the government could receive a potential $100 million per year through rental payments and reduced power costs as the result of solar development across the bases.

In the unlikely—if not implausible—event that all 125,000 acres were to be developed, the report says that the potential electricity generated would be equivalent two thirds of the DoD's nationwide demand. Less than half of that land would need to be developed to meet all of the DoD's NDAA 2010 renewable energy targets, namely that 25 percent of facilities energy use be supplied by renewable sources. Development of a mere six percent of the identified land would cover its EPAct 2005 goals.

The report gives an interesting insight into the commercial viability of current solar technologies. Fixed-mount crystalline-silicon PV was identified as the technology with the greatest capacity across all bases, but single-axis tracking PV (i.e. panels that turn to follow the sun) was projected to yield the greatest returns on investment. The 7GW solar capacity identified by the report is based on tracking systems being used—resulting in a calculated capacity of 7,147MW across the seven bases. The installed capacity of a fixed system was found to be 51 percent higher, at 10,811MW. But this is not to say a fixed system would generate more electricity. Tracking systems have a lower capacity than fixed systems because fewer cells fit into a given area, but thanks to their ability to track the sun, they will operate nearer their capacity more of the time.

The significant majority of the potential 7,147MW of solar capacity was confined to Edwards Air Force Base (3,481MW) and Fort Irwin (2,629MW), with NAWS China Lake trailing behind (960MW). Twentynine Palms offers a little better than nothing (77MW), which was more than could be said for Chocolate Mountain and El Centro (zeroes for all solar technologies, both).

Meanwhile, concentrating solar thermal systems were judged economically non-viable due to higher installation costs, though the report concedes there is some doubt due to a lack of such projects in the US in recent times.

The report highlights the "increasingly important" contribution of solar power to backup power systems, potentially reducing DoD reliance on diesel generators to power essential systems in the event of power cuts. It recommends that initial solar expansion on military installations (most of those analyzed already have 1 to 2MW of solar capacity) should be specifically targeted at backup systems.

40 Reader Comments

as noted the majority of the potential is in places that the US DOD would be most likely not willing to put a large solar collection facilities due to their existing uses.

What would be interesting to see is how much land would be needed to build modern nuclear generating stations and what the cost of building both would be , not just for construction but also for the life of the systems.

They installed a solar array by I-25 on the USAF Academy and it's been a giant waste as far as I'm concerned. Taking into account the payback time on it plus maintenance costs you're looking at 100 years or so to break even from what I got out of CEV.

One of these places would probably be better but I'll never understand why they did it at the Academy.

They installed a solar array by I-25 on the USAF Academy and it's been a giant waste as far as I'm concerned. Taking into account the payback time on it plus maintenance costs you're looking at 100 years or so to break even from what I got out of CEV.

One of these places would probably be better but I'll never understand why they did it at the Academy.

Colorado is a very good place to build solar installations for several reasons -

1. 5000' above MSL. This leads to higher solar irradiation (the amount of sunlight reaching the panels) because the light has to pass through less atmosphere. 2. Cooler temperatures increase the yield of the solar panels (panel output degrades with temperatures). 3. Relatively dry and sunny.

I cant speak to the AFA installation, but I don't think its a 100 year ROI. Most installations have a 25-30 year ROI.

"The report finds that development of the 125,000 acres is economically feasible, though only to private investors able to benefit from current tax incentives at both the Federal and State level."

Can someone explain the logic, there? 'Tax incentives' translates to government either paying a company with tax revenue directly or forgoing revenue tax revenue indirectly. In other words, any incentive related cost benefits experienced by the company come at the expense of the government.

Shouldn't they have just said something like, 'We need 3rd party companies to build it because we don't have the specialized skill'?

To put this further into perspective, the North Anna Nuclear Power Plant in Virginia generated 1.79 GW of power.

Also, Dominion Power states that the power plant can power 450,000 houses, and that there are 2,974,481 houses in Virginia according to US Census data between 2006-2010, it takes roughly 11.83 GW to power Virginia.

I like seeing this kind of analysis. Every time I see something like this I wonder how much electricity could be generated by solar car shades over parking lots for shopping malls in California and casinos in Nevada. Seems like the environmental impact would be low, since the location to be shaded by solar panels isn't going to be growing much, and you get the added benefit of leaving in a much cooler car, reducing the use of A/C and gas, and less UV damage to car paint. Also most (or all) of the electricity is likely to be used where it is generated, meaning you don't need to build long high-tension power lines.

When I first saw this I thought "very smart--they need to be able to operate even when civilian infrastructure is down and you obviously can't rely on petro based generators in time of war when shipping lanes would be curtailed and shortages high."

The obvious idea is that the bases would be self-sustaining and generate their own power in a way that conserves fuel. But it appears they would be simply leasing their land to 3rd party private companies?? That makes zero sense to me....can they 'commandeer' that power in time of war?

"The report finds that development of the 125,000 acres is economically feasible, though only to private investors able to benefit from current tax incentives at both the Federal and State level."

Can someone explain the logic, there? 'Tax incentives' translates to government either paying a company with tax revenue directly or forgoing revenue tax revenue indirectly. In other words, any incentive related cost benefits experienced by the company come at the expense of the government.

Shouldn't they have just said something like, 'We need 3rd party companies to build it because we don't have the specialized skill'?

This has nothing to do with "skill", confused why you think that?

That the study didn't zoom out far enough to take into account the total cost to the tax payer, instead of stopping with "the DoD isn't eligible for the tax payer funded incentives" is disappointing and not surprising. Any study has to have a lens or limit to what it considers.

With something of this scale though pointing out that out sourcing it to private industry that is eligible for tax payer funded subsidies without pointing out that ultimately tax payers would pay either way seems poor report writting or scope definition. The bottom line here should be "the cost to American tax payers", not "the cost to the DoD"..

Solar is great for decentralization. I'm not sure this kind of thinking makes sense...

Power decentralization or using suitable federal military installations to harness solar energy thinking does not make sense?

I'm not sure why PEOPLE are so scared of getting off the grid.If you grew up like I did with a cheap reliable power grid with fairly cheap gas, then I can see PEOPLE wanting to keep the status quo. We don't have those luxuries anymore. Crude prices are on the rise, oil companies price fix and otherwise collude to keep prices high, oil is providing huge incomes to countries that are not friendly toward the US, oil prices are highly susceptible to Persian Gulf warmongering, and we are going to have to get of oil sooner or later because its finite.

We have only one real choice and that is to utilize solar, wind, hydro and phase out nuclear, coal, and NG. The quicker we move toward this reality the cheaper and less economically painful it will be. A gradual change can be easier than a change due to crisis.

When I first saw this I thought "very smart--they need to be able to operate even when civilian infrastructure is down and you obviously can't rely on petro based generators in time of war when shipping lanes would be curtailed and shortages high."The obvious idea is that the bases would be self-sustaining and generate their own power in a way that conserves fuel. But it appears they would be simply leasing their land to 3rd party private companies?? That makes zero sense to me....can they 'commandeer' that power in time of war?

The US Government can "commandeer" anything in time of war. In WWII the US Govt seized power for aluminum plants along the Columbia River in the Pacific Northwest.

Let me point out, that according to the DoD's friends in Congress, the nation has no money to pay for anything. So why are these 7 bases considered permanent enough to be run completely independent of their own nation? They should be downsized and minimized, and they should rely on the same grid as citizens do. That will ensure that regular citizens have reliable power. Let's not create a situation as in Egypt and in many places where all the best jobs and infrastructure are in the military, so they are a de facto ruling party. Am I a conspiracy theorist? No, but we have to be vigilant to the creeping authoritarianism in this nation. Our golden era in the 20th century worked with part-time soldiering, civilian leadership and the rich shouldering the responsibility of generosity and fiscal restraint. I'd like to see a return to democratic and middle class capitalistic greatness, not the plutocracy and instability of the 19th century. It would be nice to hand a salvageable situation to my son when he comes of age.

Our greatest leaders warned us about this, wise leaders who saw first hand the danger in other nations. And I've seen entirely too much domestic mission creep on the part of our security apparatus in the last decade and this will end badly, with elections stolen and coverups. This is a vast nation, but no longer a decentralized one in the internet age.

I was wondering why not New Mexico. I guess too much testing is going on at White Sands Missile Range which spans about 40 miles east to west and about 100 miles north to south. Maybe it is too warm, but then 29 Palms is probably even hotter. Maybe it is all the secret stuff going on as it is the closest place to Sandia National Laboratory and Los Alamos National Laboratory although all that power might come in handy to charge up the Z-machine at Sandia.

Well, I wouldn't worry too much because somewhere on those 125,000 acres reside at least 6 tiny lizards or rare birds that need AT LEAST the entire area to continue their mortal existence and the environmentalists will move in to protect them! The fact that said creatures have been coexisting with the DoD for close to 60 years or better (probably thriving) will have no bearing.

The DoD will be lucky to come out of this with their bases intact when the dust settles.

I've been a part of a lot of flight test programs on DoD land, and that seeming empty space is surprisingly heavily utilized for training, research, and live fire demonstrations. We've had constant difficulty getting exclusive access to empty space at places like China Lake and Edwards because there are so many others who need to use it, too. That land is very valuable because it's flat and empty, which would be compromised by the placement of solar arrays. In general, I think the concept is a good one, but I suspect the land area that is practically available for any given site is much less than current large-scale estimates. Even ranges which are no longer used for live fire are still used for the training of infantry, safe space to overfly with dangerous vehicles, and empty space to test new sensor equipment or take measurements of test articles without interference.

Let me point out, that according to the DoD's friends in Congress, the nation has no money to pay for anything. So why are these 7 bases considered permanent enough to be run completely independent of their own nation? They should be downsized and minimized, and they should rely on the same grid as citizens do.

You're completely ignoring the question of what these bases are used for. Edwards is the primary flight testing location for the USAF. Fort Irwin is an Army training facility used for decades to teach desert warfare. China Lake is used by all branches of the military for weapons testing and training.

No one said that these power plants would be completely for the bases' use, either. If the upper levels would cover two-thirds of the DoD's nationwide use, where do you think the extra capacity would go? The DoD doesn't have its own private transmission lines linking all of the bases. It would go back into the grid for everyone else to use.

The report took into account endangered species as well as geographical features. If it's economically viable, it might make a lot of sense to do this. It's typically a lot easier to get this kind of thing done on base land than on public lands.

These bases also aren't likely the biggest energy consumers in the DoD, just the biggest open areas. If implemented, the DoD just becomes another energy supplier to the local grid the base is connected to, except when the sun goes down.

Bases elsewhere would still need to purchase power from local utilities as always. Mission critical installations would still have their diesel backups, and I can't see the DoD building an entirely separate grid to support distribution to all the installations.

The critical part of this is that while there is zero mil-construction money to support such an effort, land is available, with the initial environmental impact assessment made, and the land isn't being used for much right now, or at least the land they narrowed it down to. The question is where the upfront capitol will come from for initial construction, and who reaps the profits.

As to paneling over parking lots in the southwest - its a brilliant idea but its a large upfront cost and a slow payback, not something many businesses (focused on quarterly earnings) are willing to either except debt or spend their profits on.

This is obviously part of Obama's radical leftist plan to have the government take over the sun and force the American people to buy birth control pills for nuns to subsidize gay marriage between off-shore oil rig workers, keeping them out of a job so he can give kick backs to buddies in the shadow-Solyndra ponzi-scheme that runs the world. Muslims.

This is obviously part of Obama's radical leftist plan to have the government take over the sun and force the American people to buy birth control pills for nuns to subsidize gay marriage between off-shore oil rig workers, keeping them out of a job so he can give kick backs to buddies in the shadow-Solyndra ponzi-scheme that runs the world. Muslims.

The military is saying it isn't cost effective for the government to build these (with essentially free government money). But they would be happy to charge "rent" if a private entity wished to build them here. How exactly is a private entity supposed to make the financials work better than the government (which has access to essentially "free" money)??

Which private entity would take out a mortgage and build this, knowing it will never pay for itself? Who would lend them the money? Especially when it will only have a 20% capacity factor.

Just to put this in perspective, assuming a 20% capacity factor for solar, and 90% for nuclear, you could generate the same amount of power with about 1.3 present-day (1200MW) light water reactors, which occupy less than 1 square mile per site. These are also able to pay for themselves, which would be a major factor for a potential investor.

The military is saying it isn't cost effective for the government to build these (with essentially free government money). But they would be happy to charge "rent" if a private entity wished to build them here. How exactly is a private entity supposed to make the financials work better than the government (which has access to essentially "free" money)??

I work in a bank and syndicate project finance loans, including several solar projects. These are usually subsidized by grants or loan guarantees from the department of energy. There are a few reason the government subsidizes private companies rather than going on their own:

1. The debt debate in this country has made it better for private investors to finance the project. If the government finances it, the whole amount of the project shows up in the national debt whereas when they sponsor a private entity, that entity needs to carry the debt in its own name.

2. The free market focused government doesn't want to play favorites in the market. When setting the terms of the Power Purchase Agreement (the long term contract that solar farms use to sell power to utilities) and negotiating the engineering and panel supply contracts (to buy the panels and build the site) the government would much rather have a private actor making the final determination on price and counterparty than doing it themselves. If the government sold a lot of power to one certain utility it look like they are playing favorites, when private projects do it, it looks like that utility is offering the best terms.

3. The government doesn't want to be in the first loss equity position. Especially after Solyandra, the government would rather use guarantees to support the senior most lenders and make sure that if a project takes a loss, the private sector equity holders have to bear that risk.

4. If the government guarantees a project debt, it is practically free money - almost as cheap as if the government did the project itself. The market treats government guaranteed debt as nearly as good as actual treasury notes.

5. The private sector is much more likely to develop the projects based on supply and demand principals. If the government did this themselves it could quickly turn into a pet projects scenario where each congressmen wanted a solar facility on government land in their district.

Additionally, the report found that, for the seven bases in California, 96 percent of the land was also unsuitable—excessive slopes, environmental conflicts and the presence of exploding things being among the reasons for exclusion.

That sounds about right, and it still leaves 25,000 acres... but I wonder how much would actally be suitable.

Hmmm.

Quote:

The 7GW of potential solar capacity relies upon two assumptions. The first is that all of the suitable land would be put to use for solar generation; the second is that 25 percent of the likely and questionable land would also be utilized. The report characterizes 7GW of capacity as the "maximum" potential for solar development across the sites.

Its crucial the DoD take on a massive investment in Solar and renewables. Oil is killing the planet and other energy sources can be targeted. Distributed solar energy production is robust, can produce hydrogen and other energy storage products that the country may need as oil production becomes extraordinarily expensive, complex and controlled through complex private organizations.

Today, distributed renewable energy is a national defense and security issue. I'm thrilled to hear there are real efforts to move forward on real energy sources.

Since the days of Osgarath, the priests of Verpaz have warned us... they told the tale of the villagers who prayed to the god of Neuk. While the dragon gave them riches and protected their lands, they lived in harmony. But the original priest - Verpaz Señor warned them that it would not last.

And lo, one day the earth shook and the skies fell and the seas raised their villages. And the dragon Neuk was not amused. He spat forth his brimstone and anger upon the village.

This is why, many moons later, we now listen to the priests of Verpaz, whenever they speak. And they warn us against the dragon of Neuk.

We now pray as the priests tell us - we pray to the Stick of Hoekey, and Ed Begley Jr. For we are fearful of the dragon, and we do as we are told by the priests.

btw: everyone does realize that "solar" power is nuclear power, albeit an insanely inefficient version, right?

No, we have the dance of the retarded in the US and Europe when it comes to nuclear power. Only the mental ill would shut down or stop nuclear power plants because of what happened in Japan. I mean, if you were to put a plant in Arizona or Colorado, why - the same earthquakes and tsunamis could cause plants there to fail as well!!!

we are stupid. And the Chinese are not - they are pressing ahead with all forms of nuclear power because they don't listen to the priests of Verpaz.

btw: everyone does realize that "solar" power is nuclear power, albeit an insanely inefficient version, right?

Do you actually think that fusion reactions happening 93 million miles away are the same as fission happening 10 miles away? (Don't forget that nuclear power leaves by-products that are dangerous for at least decades)

Thankyou for reminding us that people are overoptimistic about things they are advocating for.

If we can see in advance that fossil fuel prices are on their way up, and that the by-products are a problem we should look into alternatives. The magical market doesn't act quickly enough for this. All you hear from freemarket fundamentalists is that renewable is more expensive so we should not even try to use it. This is why governments should act when they know what will be needed. The US is the heaviest user of energy on the planet and your population does not like being told to increase efficiency. Seems to me that you should take a fairly long term view in your energy policies

Colorado is a very good place to build solar installations for several reasons -

1. 5000' above MSL. This leads to higher solar irradiation (the amount of sunlight reaching the panels) because the light has to pass through less atmosphere. 2. Cooler temperatures increase the yield of the solar panels (panel output degrades with temperatures). 3. Relatively dry and sunny.

I cant speak to the AFA installation, but I don't think its a 100 year ROI. Most installations have a 25-30 year ROI.[/quote]

Here's what I know - I personally know the Colonel who spearheaded the project and worked in his Department. The cost is $18.5M with the Academy realizing a return of $500K per year - which is over a 36 year payback. However, this payback includes the 30% subsidies - which if removed from the calculations would give it an infinite payback. He's words, not mine. Furthermore, I'm ignorant of what other assumptions where made in this estimate, but I'd bet they were all very optimistic. When challenged on the payback numbers, the Col justified the project by stating the project would stimulate the PV marketplace. This statement came well before the Solyndra affair and may help explain why we're $16T in debt.